The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order taking cognizance in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act. The Court declined to invoke writ jurisdiction, holding that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy under Section 397 CrPC and can approach the Sessions Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2024.04.12 Chitra Sonawane. 17:43:38 1 4-WP-600-2024.doc +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Cri.Writ Petition No.600 of 2024
Bhavin Chhotalal Sheth .… Petitioner. Vs.
State of Maharasthra & Anr. .... Respondents.
Mr Vivek Kantawala a/w Mr Amey Patil, Mr Shanay Bafna i/by Mr Vivek M Sharma for Petitioner.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP for respondent No.1.
Mr Pradeep Yadav i/by Santosh Nisalkar for respondent No.2.
Coram : R. N. Laddha, J. Date : 12 April 2024.
P.C. :
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Chitra Sonawane. 2 4-WP-600-2024.doc
invoke its writ jurisdiction.
[ R. N. Laddha, J. ]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction when an alternate efficacious remedy under Section 397 CrPC is available against an order taking cognizance in a cheque dishonour case?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhavin Chhotalal Sheth
State of Maharasthra
Anr.
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
